Case Digest: ROLEX SUPLICO, Petitioner, vs NATIONAL ECONOMIC

AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, represented by NEDA SECRETARY SECTION 1. Judicial Notice, when mandatory. – A court shall
ROMULO L. NERI, and the NEDA-INV
take
Case Digest:
judicial notice, without introduction of evidence, of the

On April 18, 2008, the OSG filed respondents’ reply, reiterating existence

their position that for a court to exercise its power of and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms

adjudication,  of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,

there must be an actual case or controversy – one which the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,

involves a  the political constitution and history of the Philippines, 

conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims  the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial 

susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or  departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure

academic or based on extra-legal or other similar of time, and the geographical divisions.  

considerations 
not cognizable by a court of justice.
It is further provided in the above-quoted rule that the court

Contrary to petitioners’ contentions that these declarations made shall take judicial notice of the foregoing facts without

by officials belonging to the executive branch on the Philippine introduction of evidence. Since we consider the act of

Government’s decision not to continue with the ZTE-NBN Project cancellation by President Macapagal-Arroyo of the proposed

are self-serving, hence, inadmissible, the Court has no alternative ZTE-NBN Project during the meeting of October 2, 2007 with

but to take judicial notice of this official act of the President the Chinese President in China as an official act of the

of the Philippines. executive department, the Court must take judicial notice
of such official act without need of evidence.

Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides:

 legislation cannot be the basis of Our decision which requires
Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, the  a judicial finding of facts.
very antithesis of mootness. In the absence of actual
justiciable controversies or disputes, the Court generally 
opts to refrain from deciding moot issues. Where there is 
no more live subject of controversy, the Court ceases to 
have a reason to render any ruling or make any pronouncement.

The rule is well-settled that for a court to exercise 

its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case 
or controversy – one which involves a conflict of legal 
rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible 
of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or 
academic or based on extra-legal or other similar 
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.  
Where the issue has become moot and academic, there 
is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication 
thereon would be of no practical use or value as 
courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic 
questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however 
intellectually challenging.

Let it be clarified that the Senate investigation in aid of